[pianoben]

> while ignoring the fact that these laws provide tools allowing parents to do just that

These tools are called "parental controls" and already exist - we don't need laws to compel their production.

...unless, of course, the true aim is to use this as a beachhead for further expansion of privacy-violating requirements.

You write this off as a "slippery-slope" argument, but given that there are already quite a few tools that do what this law aims for, what's the point?

[SoftTalker]

Because the tools don't work, and are too fragmentary and burdensome.

Would you prefer to inform each movie theater in town which movies your child is permitted to watch? Or just rely on the rating system that applies to most movies and is honored by most theatres?

Parents want one setting that says "this is a child" and then expect online platforms to respond appropriately. As we expect and mostly have in the real world.

[autoexec]

> Parents want one setting that says "this is a child" and then expect online platforms to respond appropriately.

This law does not do that. It breaks the age of children into several buckets so that platforms, websites, and advertisers can target specific demographics. They won't "respond appropriately" they'll just use this data point as another way to improve how they exploit children online. Now every pedo with a website can tell how old the kid is so they can better adjust their grooming for that age bracket.

[pianoben]

If parents want that solution, then the proper thing is for someone to build that solution and make a fortune selling it, IMO.

[jacobgkau]

"If parents want drug stores to not sell liquor to their kids, then the proper thing is for someone to build that solution and make a fortune selling it, IMO." See how that makes zero sense in the context of a society?

Content providers are not incentivized to care about the problem, and will serve any content with ads next to it that they can unless they are forced not to. Ad-hoc solutions attempting to paper over that behavior on the consumer end are not adequate or effective. That's why they have a rationale at all for the laws here.

[pianoben]

I don't see the incongruity. It's one thing to mandate that retailers not sell alcohol to children, but it's quite another to require that all computers must report on the identities of their users just so that children don't see porn. The proper analogy would be require verification on the part of the porn sellers.

[jacobgkau]

> all computers must report on the identities of their users

Literally not what's happening with these bills. There is no identity, you would only have to type in a valid date (and nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to make it your actual birth date).

> The proper analogy would be require verification on the part of the porn sellers.

Red states tried that first, and it was very poorly received by the left and the porn industry, among other parties. Asking anonymously at the device level and leaving it to parents to enforce it is more privacy-respecting and less of a burden to adults. Which is exactly why blue states are now trying to do it this way (and is one of the reasons why Aylo & others have been asking for it to be done this way, with the other reason being it's also easier & cheaper on their end).

[SoftTalker]

This bill doesn't require reporting identities. It requires that computers be able to communicate "this is a child" to websites, social media platforms, and apps.

[Dylan16807]

Sometimes it's good to standardize things. Existing parental controls are a hot mess and they mostly work by completely blocking sites/apps, not giving them an age category.